Posts Tagged ‘socket g34’

Let’s look at some more real world applications of what we’ve learned from the VMmark results for Nehalem and what it means in a practical comparison. We’ll award Nehalem-EP’s SMT a 25% bonus for in our comparisons when vCPU/core count is taken into the measurement. In a 6:1 consolidation, this means 60 vCPU’s for 2P Nehalem and 48 vCPU’s for Shanghai. Using this bias, the following cost characteristics are revealed for VM’s with average memory footprints of 1.5GB, for the Nehalem-EP 3.2GHz system:

Nehalem-EP Configuration

Street $

1536MB VM’s, 1 vCPU’s

Max vCPU’s (6/c)

Cost/VM

2P/8C, Nehalem-EP, W5580 3.2GHz, 6.4GT QPI with 24GB DDR3/1333

$7,017.69

13

60

$539.82

2P/8C, Nehalem-EP, W5580 3.2GHz, 6.4GT QPI with 48GB DDR3/1066

$7,755.99

28

60

$277.00

2P/8C, Nehalem-EP, W5580 3.2GHz, 6.4GT QPI with 72GB DDR3/800

$8,708.19

42

60

$207.34

2P/8C, Nehalem-EP, W5580 3.2GHz, 6.4GT QPI with 96GB DDR3/1066

$21,969.99

57

60

$385.44

2P/8C, Nehalem-EP, W5580 3.2GHz, 6.4GT QPI with 144GB DDR3/800

$30,029.19

60

60

$500.49

2 x 2P/8C, Nehalem-EP, W5580 3.2GHz, 6.4GT QPI with 144GB DDR3/800

$60,058.38

120

120

$500.49

We’ll compare this to a Shanghai 2P system at 3.1GHz vs. the Nehalem-EP system:

While seems logical that more “physical” cores should scale better than the “logical” cores provided by SMT, Intel is making some ground of legacy “physical core” systems, demonstrating what appears to be a linear scaling in VMmark. However, Intel has a fine reputation for chasing – and mastering – benchmark performance only to show marginal gains in real-world applications.

Meanwhile, the presure mounts on Instanbul’s successful launch in June with white box vendors making ready for the next wave of “product release buzz” to stimulate sinking sales. Decision makers will have a lot of spreadsheet work to do to determine where the real price performance lies. Based on the high-cost of dense DDR3 and DDR2, the 16-DIMM/CPU advantage is weighing heavily on AMD’s side from a CAPEX and OPEX perspective (DDR2 is already a well-entrenched component of all socket-F platforms).

AMD’s announcement yesterday came with some interesting technical tidbits about its new server platform strategy that will affect its competitiveness in the virtualization marketplace. I want to take a look at the two new server platforms and contrast them with what is available today and see what that means for our AMD-based eco-systems in the months to come.

Initially, the introduction of more cores to the mix is good for virtualization allowing us to scale more gracefully and confidently as compared to hyper-threading. While hyper-threading is reported to increase scheduling efficiency in vSphere, it is not effectively a core. Until Nehalem-EX is widely available and we can evaluate 4P performance of hyper-threading in loaded virtual environments I’m comfortable awarding hyper-threading a 5% performance bonus – all things being equal.

AMD's Value Shift

What’s Coming?

That said, where is AMD going with Opteron in the near future and how will that affect Opteron-based eco-systems? At least one thing is clear: compatibility is assured and performance – at the same thermal footprint – will go up. So let’s look at the ramifications of the new models/sockets and compare them to our well-known 2000/8000 series to glimpse the future.

A fundamental shift away from DDR2 and towards DDR3 for the new sockets is a major difference. Like the Phenom II, Core i7 and Nehalem processors, the new Opteron will be a DDR3 specimen. Assuming DDR3 pricing continues to trend down and the promise of increased memory bandwidth is realized in the HT3/DCA2 and Opteron, DDR3 will deliver solid performance in 4000 and 6000 configurations.

Opteron 6000: Socket G34

From the announcement, G34 is analogous to the familiar 8000-series line with one glaring exception: no 8P on the road-map. In the 2010-2011 time frame, we’ll see 8-core, 12-core and 16-core variants with a new platform being introduced in 2012. Meanwhile, the 6000-series will support 4-channels of “unbuffered” or “registered” DDR3 across up to 12DIMMs per socket (3 banks by 4 channels). Assuming 6000 will support DDR3-1600, the theoretical bandwidth of a 4 channel design would yield memory bandwidths in the 40-50GB/sec range per link (about twice Istanbul’s).

AMD 2010-2013 Road-map

With a maximum module density of 16GB, a 12-DIMM by 4-socket system could theoretically contain 768GB of DDR3 memory. In 2011, that equates to 12GB/core in a 4-way, 64-core server. At 4:1 consolidation ratios for typical workloads, that’s 256 VM/host at 3GB/VM (4GB/VM with page sharing) and an average of 780MB/sec of memory bandwidth per VM. I think the math holds-up pretty well against today’s computing norms and trends. Read the rest of this entry ?

AMD released an updated technology road-map for it’s Opteron processor family, beginning with the early availability of Istanbul – its Socket-F compatible 6-core processor – shipping for revenue in May and available from OEM’s in June. This information was delivered in a webcast today.

AMD Istanbul 6-core Processor

“…up to 30 percent more performance within the same power envelope and on the same platform as current Quad-Core AMD Opteron…”

Additionally, AMD updated the availability of its Direct Connect Architecture 2.0 to be available only in the Opteron 4000 and 6000 series (socket C32 and G34, respectively). Companies waiting for the 12-core “Magny-Cours” processor will have to switch to the G34 platform in 2010. AMD announced that it is already shipping this 45nm part to sampling partners, and some customers will receive parts in 2H/2009. Magny-Cours is expected to be available from OEM’s and system vendors in 1H/2010.

“Opteron 4000 series is also planned for introduction in 2010 for 1P and 2P servers and designed to address virtualized Web and cloud computing environments. The 4000 series will launch with 4- and 6-core processors…”

AMD believes, with core counts on the rise, dense computing (HPC and data center virtualization or cloud) will rely on the 4000 series and its more “green friendly” low power parts called “EE” offering comparable performance at 40W average power. This will create a differential in the server space between 4000 and 6000 (much like 2000 and 8000 today) but with overlap in the 2P market (unlike 2000/8000). The 6000 series is envisioned as a “high performance computing” part where power sensitivity is not the major concern. Read the rest of this entry ?

In Medio Stat Veritas

SOLORI's Take and Quick Take posts express my personal opinion unless explicitly attributed to other sources. Where possible, supporting facts are presented to properly frame and ground these opinions, however they are presented "AS-IS" without regard to warranty or promise: expressed or implied.

Comments are open to all registered users and may be edited for decorum. Spam is deleted with prejudice.